[Taking k-c-d out, too much cross-posting]
On Monday 05 May 2014 21:54:42 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
If we have more than 50 libraries, do all of them need a full new release
every month ?
Not doing that leads to
1) a huge mess of versioning. The latest available version for each framework
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 04.05.2014 18:36, schrieb David Faure:
[Cross posting against my will...]
On Sunday 04 May 2014 16:27:44 Luigi Toscano wrote:
I understand that the big concern was about the testing: stable
branches did not receive the same attention
On Thursday, May 08, 2014 22:08:06 David Faure wrote:
[Taking k-c-d out, too much cross-posting]
On Monday 05 May 2014 21:54:42 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
If we have more than 50 libraries, do all of them need a full new release
every month ?
Not doing that leads to
1) a huge mess of
[This message is a reply to all people requesting a long-term-maintained
frameworks branch.]
On Sunday 04 May 2014 16:27:44 Luigi Toscano wrote:
Kevin Ottens ha scritto:
So, we had a team discussion here with Albert, Aleix, Alex, Alex,
Aurélien, David, Rohan and myself. We juggled with
On Monday, May 05, 2014 11:11:53 Martin Klapetek wrote:
However this highly depends on the distro policies - if some of the big
distros say we will not update KF5 every month because our policies, then
the 6 months buffer is just moved elsewhere, at the distro level because
they will update
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:36 PM, David Faure fa...@kde.org wrote:
[Cross posting against my will...]
On Sunday 04 May 2014 16:27:44 Luigi Toscano wrote:
I understand that the big concern was about the testing: stable branches
did
not receive the same attention
This is not the main
On Sunday, May 04, 2014 16:27:44 Luigi Toscano wrote:
Kevin Ottens ha scritto:
So, we had a team discussion here with Albert, Aleix, Alex, Alex,
Aurélien,
David, Rohan and myself. We juggled with several options, trying to
address
the following constraints:
* We don't have many
Kevin Ottens ha scritto:
So, we had a team discussion here with Albert, Aleix, Alex, Alex, Aurélien,
David, Rohan and myself. We juggled with several options, trying to address
the following constraints:
* We don't have many contributors;
* We don't have enough testing in the stable
[Cross posting against my will...]
On Sunday 04 May 2014 16:27:44 Luigi Toscano wrote:
I understand that the big concern was about the testing: stable branches did
not receive the same attention
This is not the main concern.
My main concern is that application developers prefer to work around
David Faure ha scritto:
[Cross posting against my will...]
On Sunday 04 May 2014 16:27:44 Luigi Toscano wrote:
I understand that the big concern was about the testing: stable branches did
not receive the same attention
This is not the main concern.
My main concern is that application
On Sunday, April 27, 2014 15:55:07 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
El Diumenge, 27 d'abril de 2014, a les 15:15:32, David Faure va escriure:
FYI.
Interesting fact here that original the mail was just sent to k-f-d and
k-c-d.
I am seeing similar patterns in the plasma land, where they went their
On Sunday 27 April 2014, Kevin Ottens wrote:
Of course, going with this type of cycle comes with some price of its own:
* Features in released modules can only be introduced in a very fine
grained way so as to not jeopardize the stability;
on one hand I'll probably miss feature branches, on
Hello people,
As you may have noticed, we're covering quite a few tasks here during the
sprint. But, we're also having discussion topics, and the most important one
we covered is the release cycle. Indeed, we got the question several times
already of once 5.0 is out what will happen? It is
On Sunday 27 April 2014 11:51:01 Kevin Ottens wrote:
Short story: we'll go for a one month release cycle, with no branch.
This is a bold move. I like it.
Rapid release cycles have their own challenges, but I think we have the means
to make them work. And they come with benefits. Getting our
On 27/04/14 10:51, Kevin Ottens wrote:
Hello people,
As you may have noticed, we're covering quite a few tasks here during the
sprint. But, we're also having discussion topics, and the most important one
we covered is the release cycle. Indeed, we got the question several times
already
a) to happen but i can see if being hard so i'm open to anything
people want :)
Cheers,
Albert
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle
Date: Sunday 27 April 2014, 11:51:01
From: Kevin Ottens er...@kde.org
To: kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org
CC: kde-core-de
On Sunday 27 April 2014 15:55:07 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
Interesting fact here that original the mail was just sent to k-f-d and
k-c-d.
That was my suggestion, to avoid cross-posting to 4 lists everytime someone
answers, which always creates issues because kde-packager@ is moderated.
I am
: domingo, 27 de abril de 2014 16:09
Per a: kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org
Respon a: KDE release coordination
A/c: Albert Astals Cid; release-t...@kde.org
Tema: Re: Fwd: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle
On Sunday 27 April 2014 15:55:07 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
Interesting fact here that original the mail
Longer answer now that i'm no longer on the move :)
El Diumenge, 27 d'abril de 2014, a les 16:09:27, David Faure va escriure:
On Sunday 27 April 2014 15:55:07 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
Interesting fact here that original the mail was just sent to k-f-d and
k-c-d.
That was my suggestion, to
On Sunday 27 April 2014 17:14:43 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
i'm just stating that both schedules
were discussed outside this list
Ah, sorry, now I understand better the purpose of your email.
Well, it is often the case that discussions that normally happen on mailing-
lists, happen differently
20 matches
Mail list logo
